King

Charles at first a friend to the puritans.

is called frater noster uterinus. He had only a daughter, who was mother or grandmother to the earl of Gowry: so that by this he might be glad to put the king out of the way, that so he might stand next to the succession of the crown of England. He had a brother then a child, who when he grew up, and found he could not carry the name of Ruthen, which by an act of parliament made after this conspiracy none might carry, he went and lived beyond sea; and it was given out that he had the philosopher's stone. He had two sons, who died without issue; and one daughter, married to sir Anthony Vandike the famous picture drawer, whose children, according to his pedigree, stood very near to the succession of the crown. It was not easy to persuade the nation of the truth of that conspiracy: for eight years before that time king James, on a secret jealousy of the earl of Murray, then esteemed the handsomest man of Scotland, set on the marquis of Huntly, who was his mortal enemy, to murder him; and by a writing P, all in his own hand, he promised to save him harmless for it. He set the house in which he was on fire: and the earl flying away was followed and murdered, and Huntly sent Gordon of Buckey with the news to the king: soon after, all who were concerned in that vile fact were pardoned, which laid the king open to much censure. And this made the matter of Gowry to be the less believed.

When king Charles succeeded to the crown, he was at first thought favourable to the puritans; for his tutor and all his court were of that way 9: and

Dr. Preston, then the head of the party, came up in the coach from Theobald's to London with the king and the duke of Buckingham; which being against the rules of the court gave great offence: but it was said, the king was so overcharged with grief, that he wanted the comfort of so wise and so great a man. It was also given out, that the duke of Buckingham offered Dr. Preston the great seal: but he was wiser than to accept of it. I will go no further into the beginning of that reign with relation to English affairs, which are fully opened by others. Only I will tell one particular which I had from the earl of Lothian, who was bred up in the court, and whose father, the earl of Ancram, was gentleman of the bedchamber, though himself was ever much hated by the king. He told me, that king Charles 20 was much offended with king James's light and familiar way, which was the effect of hunting and drinking, on which occasions he was very apt to forget his dignity, and to break out into great indecencies: on the other hand the solemn gravity of the court of Spain was more suited to his own temper, which was sullen even to a moroseness. This led him to a grave reserved deportment, in which he forgot the civilities and the affability that the nation naturally loved, to which they had been long accustomed: nor did he in his outward deportment take any pains to oblige any persons whatsoever: so far from that, he had such an ungracious way of shewing favour, that the manner of bestowing it was

be called an academy of that nation; most of the officers of the household, and seven out of eight of the grooms of the bedchamber, which proved of

VOL. I.

very great use to them in being constantly informed of his majesty's most private transactions during the civil war. D.

D

He de

signed to

tithes and

church lands in

Scotland to

almost as mortifying as the favour was obliging. I turn now to the affairs of Scotland, which are but little known 9.

The king resolved to carry on two designs that recover the his father had set on foot, but had let the prosecution of them fall in the last years of his reign. The first of these was about the recovery of the tithes the crown. and church lands: he resolved to prosecute his father's revocation, and to void all the grants made in his minority, and to create titular abbots as lords of parliament, but lords, as bishops, only for life. And that the two great families of Hamilton and Lenox might be good examples to the rest of the nation, he, by a secret purchase, and with English money, bought the abbey of Aberbroth of the former, and the lordship of Glasgow of the latter, and gave these to the two archbishoprics. These lords made a shew of zeal after a good bargain, and surrendered them to the king. He also purchased several estates of less value to the several sees; and all men, who pretended to favour at court, offered their church lands to sale at a low rate.

In the third year of his reign the earl of Nithisdale, then believed a papist, which he afterwards professed, having married a niece of the duke of Buckingham's, was sent down with a power to take the surrender of all church lands, and to assure all who did readily surrender, that the king would take it kindly, and use them all very well, but that he would proceed with all rigour against those who would not submit their rights to his disposal. Upon his coming down, those who were most concerned in those grants met at Edinburgh, and agreed, that 9 Not worth knowing. S.

when they were called together, if no other argu-
ment did prevail to make the earl of Nithisdale de-
sist, they would fall upon him and all his party in
the old Scotish manner, and knock them on the
head. Primrose told me one of these lords, Bel-
haven, of the name of Dowglass, who was blind, bid
them set him by one of the party; and he would 21
make sure of one'. So he was set next the earl of
Dunfrize: he was all the while holding him fast:
and when the other asked him what he meant by
that, he said, ever since the blindness was come on
him he was in such fear of falling, that he could not
help the holding fast to those who were next to
him: he had all the while a poniard in his other
hand, with which he had certainly stabbed Dunfrize,
if any disorder had happened. The appearance at
that time was so great, and so much heat was raised
upon it, that the earl of Nithisdale would not open
all his instructions, but came back to court, looking
on the service as desperate: so a stop was put to it
for some time.

crowned in

In the year 1633 the king came down in person He was to be crowned. In some conventions of the states Scotland. that had been held before that, all the money that

This brings to my remembrance a story I heard the first duke of Bolton tell of himself before a great deal of company: that when the bill of exclusion was debating in the house of lords, the old earl of Peterborow said that was a cause in which every man in England was obliged to draw his sword, and laid his hand upon his own, as if he designed to draw it immediately, which

created a great disorder, and
every body seemed preparing to
do the like: upon which the
duke of Bolton said he got as
near to the marquis of Halifax
as he could, being resolved to
make sure of him, in case any
violence had been offered: and
that there were more who had
taken the same resolution,
though he did not name them.
D.

the king had asked was given; and some petitions were offered setting forth grievances, which those whom the king employed had assured them should be redressed but nothing was done, and all was put off till the king should come down in person. His entry and coronation were managed with such magnificence, that the country suffered much by it: all was entertainment and shew. When the parliament sat, the lords of the articles prepared an act declaring the royal prerogative, as it had been asserted by law in the year 1606; to which an addition was made of another act passed in the year 1609, by which king James was impowered to prescribe apparel to churchmen with their own consent. This was a personal thing to king James, in consideration of his great learning and experience, of which he had made no use during the rest of his reign. And in the year 1617, when he held a parliament there in person, an act was prepared by the lords of the articles, authorizing all things that should thereafter be determined in ecclesiastical affairs by his majesty, with consent of a competent number of the clergy, to have the strength and power of a law. of a law. But the king either apprehended that great opposition would be made to the passing the act, or that great trouble would follow on the execution of it: so when the rubric of the act was read, he ordered it to be suppressed, though passed in the articles. In this act of 1633 these acts of 1606 and 1609 were drawn into one. To this, great opposition was made by the earl of Rothes, who desired the acts might be divided: but the king said, it was now one act, and he must either vote for it or against it. He said, he was for the prerogative